January 23, 2009

Indian origin of haplogroup R1a1 (?)

The paper does not appear to be live yet, so I cannot comment on the specifics. However, judging from the abstract I see no reason to agree with the authors' conclusions. My most recent observations on the topic can be found in Origin of Hindu Brahmins. The authors' observation of paragroup R1a* Y-chromosomes in India is in itself unremarkable, as such chromosomes have been found outside India, e.g., in North Iran, Crete, and Greek Macedonia (and I'm sure elsewhere). The argument about the presence of R1a1 in tribals does not carry force, as its presence there (at much lower frequencies than in Brahmin groups) can be explained as the result of occasional admixture. Moreover, India is exceptionally notable for its lack (except in a few erratics) of the related haplogroup R1b, which once again argues against the emergence of R1a in India itself.

See also another recent study which considers R1a1 extraneous in India, and which includes links to various other blog posts on the topic.

Perhaps I will have more on this when I read the paper (feel free to send me a copy to my e-mail address).

J Hum Genet. 2009 Jan 9. [Epub ahead of print]

The Indian origin of paternal haplogroup R1a1(*) substantiates the autochthonous origin of Brahmins and the caste system.

Sharma S. et al.

Abstract

Many major rival models of the origin of the Hindu caste system co-exist despite extensive studies, each with associated genetic evidences. One of the major factors that has still kept the origin of the Indian caste system obscure is the unresolved question of the origin of Y-haplogroup R1a1(*), at times associated with a male-mediated major genetic influx from Central Asia or Eurasia, which has contributed to the higher castes in India. Y-haplogroup R1a1(*) has a widespread distribution and high frequency across Eurasia, Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent, with scanty reports of its ancestral (R(*), R1(*) and R1a(*)) and derived lineages (R1a1a, R1a1b and R1a1c). To resolve these issues, we screened 621 Y-chromosomes (of Brahmins occupying the upper-most caste position and schedule castes/tribals occupying the lower-most positions) with 55 Y-chromosomal binary markers and seven Y-microsatellite markers and compiled an extensive dataset of 2809 Y-chromosomes (681 Brahmins, and 2128 tribals and schedule castes) for conclusions. A peculiar observation of the highest frequency (up to 72.22%) of Y-haplogroup R1a1(*) in Brahmins hinted at its presence as a founder lineage for this caste group. Further, observation of R1a1(*) in different tribal population groups, existence of Y-haplogroup R1a(*) in ancestors and extended phylogenetic analyses of the pooled dataset of 530 Indians, 224 Pakistanis and 276 Central Asians and Eurasians bearing the R1a1(*) haplogroup supported the autochthonous origin of R1a1 lineage in India and a tribal link to Indian Brahmins. However, it is important to discover novel Y-chromosomal binary marker(s) for a higher resolution of R1a1(*) and confirm the present conclusions.

85 comments:

Michael E. Weale et al. ("Armenian Y chromosome haplotypes reveal strong regional structure within a single ethno-national group," Human Genetics Volume 109, Number 6 (December, 2001)) have reported finding hg29 (R1a-SRY10831.2(xR1a1-M17)) in 1/189 of their "North" and 1/90 of their "West" samples of Armenians for a total of 2/734 = 0.27% of their entire pool of Armenian samples.

"existence of Y-haplogroup R1a(*) in ancestors and extended phylogenetic analyses of the pooled dataset of 530 Indians, 224 Pakistanis and 276 Central Asians and Eurasians bearing the R1a1(*) haplogroup supported the autochthonous origin of R1a1 lineage in India and a tribal link to Indian Brahmins. "

The Aryan equation in India got amplified because of caste system. Every cast has founder effect.

SO called Indian Aryans did not originate for from India.

The current boundary of India is not the deciding factor. You need to concider the genetic entity of Afganistan, Pakistan and India to gether for any genetic comparisions.

Whether dienekes agrres or not the origin is definitely to the east of what he likes to believe.

People from India make it India centric(politics) and people from Europe tries to make it Europe centric.(politics).

Take a look at the globe or map one time and then talk Conroy.Ask Dienekes He can tell you the reason to Include Greeks from Afghanistan to Atlantic and Turkey

Why do you say great Iberian refuge and and beat the hello out of that topic?

Same reason you talk about British Isles as single entity.

Same logic and reason applies to all Dude.

As you brought Iran into topic. If you include Iran and compare the data that only strengthens the article and more R1a analysis.How far is Central Asia to Pakistan and India. Both historically and genetically?.

Indian scientists fight against including Central Asia to India genetic closeness for one reason and Europeans like you fight for the other reason.

For a fuller overview of the matter, read:The Horse, the Wheel, and Language:How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern Worldby David W. Anthonyhttp://press.princeton.edu/titles/8488.html

R1a* and R1a1 are much older than 1500 bp or even 3500 bp in South Asia folks. R1a1 STR variation in Pakistan and North India is higher than anywhere in the world, and highest in tribals followed by low castes, high castes and middle castes in that order.

A number of tribes also have higher spatial frequency of R1a1 than some high castes. The fact that some tribes have low frequency is not important since tribes are very disparate groups. Tribes should not be considered as equivalent to one big caste.

Obviously what is important is identification of the specific phylogeny from R1a* to R1a1. If an upstream marker(s) is found only in India, then...

I think you meant to say that R1a came to India with the Aryan Invasion at 1500 BC and not 1500 years ago as you said!!!Anyway finding out how and when R1a emerged would be a difficult task to do because this particular Hg has spread in an enormous area and in many different peoples and environments.That means a lot of possibilities to have numerous founder effect phenomena, bottlenecks, genetic drifts, etc.Besides finding out our past has always been extremely difficult!Note for example that WE STILL DON'T KNOW how the hell did the two initial Europoid types emerged (the Brunn and Cro-magnon types)!!!We don't know their initial habitat, their immigration route, their affinities, etc.And all this after more than 100 years of research!!!

Without taking a position on the results of the paper, let me state that I am not surprised by the paper.

The main theory that claims that Indians originated in Central Asia is called the Aryan Invasion Theory which has been renamed the Aryan Migration Theory. This theory is based on the works of Max Muller and William Jones.

Both Muller and Jones based their claims on the Bible. There were two schools of thought that developed in the 18th and 19th centuries, but both were Bible-based. The first assumed that all inhabitants of today's world are the descendants of one of the three sons of Noah since their family was the only surviving family after the flood. The descendants of Noah's son Japheth were called Aryans, a fact admitted by Max Muller.

The second school of thought based its idea on the field of philology, a field invented for the purpose of "proving" that all languages came from the Tower of Babel.

Both Max Muller and William Jones base their theories partly on both biblical strands. Today's scholars like Stanley Wolpert credit Max Muller and William Jones for the development of the Aryan Invasion Theory.

Just go to books.google.com and search for Aryan and Japhetic and you will find tonnes of evidence for what I am stating.

"You need to concider the genetic entity of Afganistan, Pakistan and India to gether for any genetic comparisions".

Afghanistan is at a confluence of several regions. Most groups are very mixed but in the north the people are primarily East Asian looking and speak Turkic languages. In the south are mainly Pashtuns, also found across the border in Pakistan. In the mountains of Bamian the people are Hazari, East Asian looking but speaking a language related to Persian. They are Shia whereas most in Afghanistan are Sunni. No wonder things are currently so mixed up there. They always have been.

William Jones was one of the first linguists. He based his theory of an Indo-European language and homeland on linguistic similarities between Greek, Latin and Sanskrit, and was the first person to posit the idea. Here's what he said:

The Sanscrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists; there is a similar reason, though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothic and the Celtic, though blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin with the Sanscrit; and the old Persian might be added to the same family.

I am just saying sofar Dienekes or anybody not showing any scientific proof for R1a origin other than throwing arguments or stones on papers publishing proof of some thing. Which is towards east.

"Throwing stones" implies an irrational type of attack. That is not why I am skeptical of the "Indian origin" theory, but for quite specific reasons (ancient DNA of R1a1 in Europe and Siberia, coalescence ages of Indian R1a1, implausibility of linking steppe or even worse European Corded Ware cultures with an Out-of-India scenario etc.).

Why do you call something that was done openly as a conspiracy? I sent you a 16-page discourse by William Jones. Please check your email. It is hard to go against strongly held beliefs, but good science requires that in the presence of evidence, we give up dearly held beliefs.

Here are some excerpts to show you that Jones based his ideas on the Bible.

Page 1: “The establishment of the only human family after the deluge;”

Page 4-5: “… these three races, how variously soever they may at present be dispersed, and intermixed, must (if the preceding conclusions be justly drawn) have migrated originally from a central country, to find which is the problem proposed for solution.”

Page 8-9: “Three sons of the just and virtuous man, whose lineage was preserved from the general inundation, traveled, we are told, as they began to multiply, in three large divisions variously subdivided ; the children of Yafet seem, from the traces of Sklavonian names, and the mention of their being enlarged, to have spread themselves far and wide, and to have produced the race which, for want of correct appellation, we call Tartarian; the colonies formed by the sons of Ham and Shem appear to have been nearly simultaneous; and among those of the latter branch . . . while the former branch, the most powerful and adventurous of whom were the progeny of Cush, Misr and Rama, (names remaining unchanged in Sanscrit, and highly revered by the Hindus) were, in all probability, the race which I call Indian . . .”

Page 10: “. . . we still find Harran in Mesopotamia, and travellers appear unanimous in fixing the site of ancient Babel.Thus, on the preceding supposition, that the first eleven chapters of the book, which is thought proper to call Genesis, are merely preface to the oldest civil history which is now extant, we see the truth of them confirmed by antecedent reasoning, and by evidence in part highly probable, and in part certain ; but the connexion of the Mosaic history with that of the Gospel by a chain of sublime predictions unquestionably ancient, and apparently fulfilled, must induce us to think the Hebrew narrative more than human in its origin, and consequently true in every substantial part of it, though possibly expressed in figurative language ; as many learned and pious men have believed, and as the most pious may believe without injury, and perhaps with advantage to the cause of revealed religion. If Moses then was endued with supernatural knowledge, it is no longer probable only, but absolutely certain, that the whole race of man proceeded from Iran, as from a centre, whence they migrated at first in three great colonies ; and that those three branches grew from a common stock, which had been miraculously preserved in a general convulsion and inundation of this globe.”

From the same book on Page 89, you have the following: “That the Vedas were actually written before the flood, I shall never believe . . .”

Here is what Max Muller said about the language of Aryans: "It was usual formerly to speak of Japhetic, Hamitic and Seimitic languages. The first name has now been replaced by Aryan . . .

I agree with Dienekes. So what if William Jones tried to link the origin or South Asians to the Bible - this was a guy who was born in 1749 afterall!

Remember that Newton discovered Calculus and the laws of Gravity, yet still believed that God moved planets around, when he felt like it - but would you dismiss his great discoveries just because he tried to link them to the bible - NO! Same goes for Jones.

William Jones and Max Muller are irrelevant to the issue of Aryan Invasion and caste system? Clearly, you do not know about the history of the theory. There is no AIT without William Jones and Max Muller. Read Stanley Wolpert or Romila Thapar who are proponents of the theory and you will find that they credit William Jones and Max Muller and no one else. Either you have not read them or have accepted their claims without looking into the details.

The Aryan Invasion Theory and its so-called linguistic basis was developed by William Jones and Max Muller and the formal structure of the theory as known throughout the 20th century was published in the Imperial Gazetteer of India. This is what has been repeated for nearly 100 years.

The basis of the theory is the Bible. In the Biblical story, Noah cursed his son Ham that Ham's descendants would be the servants of the other two brothers (Japheth and Shem). Noah blessed Japheth that he would be enlarged. This story was the basis of the Aryan theory. The linguistic "analysis" that they tried to retro-fit onto the theory is based on the assumption that all languages came from the Tower of Babel.

Dienekes, I think the big difference between you and me is that I need evidence before accepting a theory, but you first accept a theory as immutable truth and are skeptical about the evidence if it does not fit your theory. A theory without evidence and that originated in the Bible is just that -- a biblical theory.

You have fallen victim to a common fallacy without thinking through the issue. You have given the exact same argument given by creationists about Newton.

Newton's idea on calculus does not have a biblical foundation. If it did and had no other theoretical or empirical data to support it, yes, I would reject it. The same with the theory of gravity.

In case of the Aryan Theory, its foundation is solely biblical in nature, and it has zero evidence in archeology, fossil studies, DNA data, metallurgy or references in literature. Any evidence in these fields points to the contrary.

This leads to an interesting question: Why do you believe that Aryan Invasion Theory is the kind of theory that should be considered true while evidence against it should be viewed with skepticism while in case of other theories you believe that the theory should be viewed with skepticism until supported with data?

You state:In case of the Aryan Theory, its foundation is solely biblical in nature, and it has zero evidence in archeology, fossil studies, DNA data, metallurgy or references in literature. Any evidence in these fields points to the contrary.

If this is what you want to believe, and wish to ignore the evidence I have linked to, so be it. However I won't waste my time trying to engage in a rational discussion with you.

In case of the Aryan Theory, its foundation is solely biblical in nature, and it has zero evidence in archeology, fossil studies, DNA data, metallurgy or references in literature. Any evidence in these fields points to the contrary.

So, how did half of Eurasia end up speaking Indo-European languages? Do you deny the existence of this language family, or are you an advocate of an "Out of India" theory of Indo-European dispersals?

I am not an advocate of "Out of India" theory either. This is the difference between you and me. I seek evidence no matter what the theory. You have an out-of-india theory? Go ahead and give me the proof. You have a theory of origin in Mount Ararat? Go ahead and present your proof. You accept a theory that is based on the Bible without knowing that the entire basis is biblical.

Why are you so adamant on holding on to a biblical theory? If you are really fair, you will accept that the burden of proof is on the person making a positive assertion (assuming you go by logic). And if you are fair, once you realize that you have been supporting a biblical theory without your knowledge, you will quickly give it up.

Notice that you are skeptical of science. In essence, you are fondly hoping that the biblical theory you hold so dear to your heart will be proved true. Until then, you will keep rubbishing any data. Come on, that is not the way to be objective.

If this is how science functioned, all non-falsifiable crackpot theories would be accepted in academia! Thankfully, that is not how it functions.

You even go so far as to claim that William Jones has nothing to do with the Aryan theory! I mean that alone betrays your lack of knowledge on the subject. Like William Jones, Max Muller too heavily relies on the Bible. BTW, the AIT you propagate is created from a boilerplate theory. According to this biblical theory, Tutsis are "light-skinned" biblical people who conquered the Hutus! I am not joking here. The exact same theory for Rwanda exists.

Here is a description of AIT in all its absurdity which I hope will make you think and look for facts instead of asserting that the theory is immutably true and all evidence must be wrong or part of some conspiracy by Indians - There were people in Central Asia. When an earthquake or flood (we don't know what it was and don't have proof) occurred, the men got frightened and jumped on their horses and galloped away leaving the women and children behind. Why did they leave the women and children behind? Because the women and children would not have survived the harsh terrain. So this is what your theory states - the women and children were strong enough to deal with the catastrophe that struck Central Asia but not strong enough to deal with the harsh terrain, but it was the other way for men!

And yes, the second piece of absurdity in your theory is that there is a civilization in India without any hint of language and there is a language from Central Asia without any trace of civilization. These two came together and formed a blended civilization! And the proof? It is in the Book of Genesis!

pconroy: the links you gave do not contain any evidence. I am willing to look at the links you give. For your part, why don't you too have an open mind and read the works of Max Muller and William Jones? Why just them? Just go to books.google and search for Aryan and Japhetic and you will see that what I state here was standard fare until the end of 1890s. In the 20th century, the academics merely memorized and repeated whatever was published in the Imperial Gazetteer of India.

1. Corded ware culture?. How old it is? why it is needed to be connected to Indo Europeans?. The lineage is older than the culture. Unless your theory of recalculation bring origin of R1a to 3000 bc exactly.Corded ware culture is a local phenomena of one part of lineage centers.

The urban or nomadic cultures in Central Asia, Pakistan, Baluchistan( separated by 100 miles) or much older than any found in Western Eurasia. Ex: MeharGarh

2. Unable to connect with steppe cultures.

In the same blog You criticized when Indian papers tried to disconnect Indians to Central Asia.

Now you are agreeing there is a disconnect?.

If you agree there is a disconnect it clearly proves that Indian Lineages are different.

3. Ancient R1a1 in Europe and Siberia.

Genetic proof is less in Europe and few remnants in Siberia. and no traces in Russia. Some thing missing here. Data points are very less compared to East.

Show me a good paper. .

4.coalescence ages need to be calculated in the same way for all the places. You posted same age for both based for Europe and India with recalculation.Why do you want to take out India now?

5. No R1b in India.

How about R2 and Q and some R1b.

No we conveniently forget.

6. current boundary of India is not reference. out of India based on current India is like saying only include Greece and exclude Anatolia, and other Adjoining places. Indian Sub continent from the ages contain starting from Afghanistan. R1a is from some place close to it.

7. The clear separation of J2a dominance in Iran and R1a, dominance in Afghan,Pak, India clearly gives the picture of R1a Lineage. The 50 mile distance can give the complete different picture.

8. Aryan Invasion is theory proposed with out any proof. Not a single proof. It is an idea which got lot of publicity. there is gradual assimilation of Haplogroups just like in Europe.

WHo do you believe Aryans?

G,K? L, NO? P or R2? only and exclude H , C and F? because they are concentrated in south?.

9. You always bring up Caste system for Aryan Theory. 70% of North Indian Lower casts are R1a please read more.

South India it is more C,H and F

10 Out of India can be tall order with current boundary. but Out of south Asia is not remote.

"70% of North Indian Lower casts are R1a please read more."Where is this from? This table does not give me the same impression - http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2006/01/11/0507714103.DC1/07714Table_3.pdf

Muller also said: "That the Zoroastrians and their ancestors started from India during the Vaidik period can be proved as distinctly as that the inhabitants of Massilia started from Greece." "The Zoroastrians were a colony from northern India. They had been together for a time with the people whose sacred songs have been preserved to us in the Veda. A schism took place and the Zoroastrians migrated westward to Arachosia and Persia. . . . They gave to the new cities, and to the rivers along which they settled, the names of cities and rivers familiar to them, and reminding them of the localities which they had left. Now as a Persian A points to a Sanskrit *, Haroyu would be in Sanskrit Saroyu. One of the sacred rivers of India, a river mentioned in the Veda, .... has the name of Sarayu, the modern Saraju." 'We may conclude with great probability that this Sarayu or Sarasyu gave itsname to the river Arius or Heri, and to the county of Aria or Herat."

"I have declared again and again that if I say Aryans, I mean neither blood nor bones, nor hair nor skull; I mean simply those who speak an Aryan language… in that sense, and in that sense only, do I say that even the blackest Hindus represent an earlier stage of Aryan speech and thought than the fairest Scandinavians""Sanskrit was the spoken language of India at least some centuries before the time of Solomon … whereas at the time of Solomon their language had extended to Cutch and even the Malabar coast, this will show that at all events Sanskrit is not of yesterday, and that it is as old, at least, as the book of Job, in which the gold of Ophir is mentioned"

Please note Muller is putting a lower limit here not an upper, he is essentially predicting prior to the discovery of Harrapa & Mohenjodaro that the Indus Valley, Kutch, and maybe even Malabar were Sanskrit speaking by the time of Solomon in 1000bc. His 1500bc estimate was a lower limit since he calculated backwards from the Buddhist texts assigning ‘minimum’ periods.

"AP this is very old data whihc is not complete. Again please read the data you posted again also. I am saying the same thing.R1a is in all casts and even in lower casts in north it is majority."

I am not saying the same exact thing - R1a is present in most castes but not in the proportions you state.First, you said "70% of North Indian lower casts are R1a" I have not seen any evidence of that.

"Bihar Paswans it is the largest haplogroup( R1a). The total R* is at 53%.. No other lower cast data in that table. Please reply if you find more data on nortH Indian lowecasts."

That is correct, but total R* is not total R1a1.Total R for WBBrahmin is 94.44%

As far as origin of R is concerned it is very possibly India or a nearby region such as eastern Iran since that would explain the high R-2 numbers in that region. For R1a1 the data is not that clear - it could very well be India.

The Sengupta paper which had pretty comprehensive data had this breakdown for R1a1 in north India: UC-45.35 MC-10.42% LC-26.00%. Both North India MC and LC numbers not only well below 50% but also lower that of Dravidian speaking UC at 28.81%

Saharia tribe is one tribe in India, there are scores of others who don't have R1a*Sharma, et al, have good data but make an overly extensive claim: “The observation of R1a* in high frequency for the first time in the literature”High frequency of what, a tiny group?First, it is miniscule in Kashmiri Brahmins (itself a minute group) at 3.2% and its presence in Saharia, though high are 22%, is in another tiny tribe.

Furthermore, R1a* is present in other areas: “ In north Iran , individuals within the R1-M306 clade can be further subdivided into R1-M306*, R1a1*-M198, R1b1a-M269 and R1a*-SRY1532 (XM198) occurring with frequencies of 3.0, 3.03, 15.15 and 3.03%, respectively ... the detection of rare R1-M173* and R1a-SRY1532 lineages in Iran at higher frequencies than observed for either Turkey, Pakistan or India suggests the hypothesis that geographic origin of haplogroup R may be nearer Persia.” http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=ShowPDF&ArtikelNr=93774&ProduktNr=224250&filename=93774.pdf

Please note, that the 3.03% number is across all of northern Iran as a whole, not in just in an isolated tribe with a population of approx 300000.

It is present in Sweden as well: http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v14/n8/pdf/5201651a.pdf, again very low at 1%, but across Sweden as a whole.

Next, we don't know the history of the Saharia tribe. Are they Sabaras (Sabari-Ramayana)or Saura(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sora_people)? Old Magadha accounts tell of a personage - Phadi Chandra, a Suir king. Was this the Visvaphani, the Kusana appointee?

There are two regions in India which the Huns occupied. The Huna Mandala (Hun country) was 1. Kashmir and 2. Malwa region where the Saharia live - The Saharias are found mainly in Morena, Bhind, Gwalior, Datia, Shivpuri and Guna districts of Madhya Pradesh and Baran of Rajasthan. This is the Huna Mandala of Indian Texts - in the modern dacoit prone region of Chambal, Sindhu, and Kalindi/Jamuna rivers.

Furthermore another study on Q in India concluded: “It was quite interesting to observe an ancestral state Q* and a novel sub-branch Q5, not reported elsewhere, in Indian subcontinent, though in low frequency. A novel subgroup Q4 was identified recently which is also restricted to Indian subcontinent. The most plausible explanation for these observations could be an ancestral migration of individuals bearing ancestral lineage Q* to Indian subcontinent followed by an autochthonous differentiation to Q4 and Q5 sublineages later on.” http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2148-7-232.pdf

The highest presence of Q is in the Kashmir (4 out 21 total Qs) and Malwa region (7 out of 21 total Qs) – exactly the same region where highest ever presence of R1a* is also being reported.

If Huns are from Central Asia, R1a* with Q could both have been introduced from Central Asia. Of course, it could have been other way around - that Huns originated from Huna Mandala and occupied Eurasia.Saharia use the title Raut which points to a military occupation in the past.IMO, another tribe to east of Saharia called the Banaphar (Kushan Vanaspara?) is also worth investigating, since they still preserve a name akin to the Hunas.

I am not disputing the Sharma paper, just not accepting it as the final word, and as the authors themselves say: "It is, therefore, very important to discover novel Y chromosomal binary marker(s) for defining monophyletic subhaplogroup(s) belonging to Y-R1a1* with a higher resolution to confirm the present conclusion."

This may be a co-incidence but Hunwomen wore horn-like hair decoration - see Enoki (www.azargoshnasp.net/history/Hephtalites/enokihephtalites.pdf) Both Sung Yun & Huen Tsiang state that Yetha-Himtala's married women wore horns on their forehead.

and the Suir women did too: "Soiri- They appear to be identical with the Sahariyas of Bundelkhand ... they appear in Shahabad and Bihar as Suiri. A few are also found in Allahabad where they form a small body of cultivators under the name of Suirai. There is another small body of apparently the same clan who are living to the north of the Ganges in eastern Oudh under the name of Sarhiya....their women wear a Tartan dress and often have a kind of horn projecting from the forehead as an ornament."

The current paper made conclusions using previous data also and groups as they mentioned.

Still Iran population is lesser than Bihar's. R1a is not a dominant haplogroup in Iran Max 20%.

11% R1* in Bihar and 40% R1a is significant.

If you add all casts of North it is more than 50%.

The deserts of Baluchistan separated Indian sub continent and Iran ,Iraq.

Even though Iran is treated as HQ of Aryan stock. I think R1a originated place close to Indian Sub continent. there is definitely mixture. R1a , R2 is more Indian than Iranian and source also 50 miles +/-.

Here another good article (Public Access) on Indian Y-DNA analysis:Presence of three different paternal lineages among North Indians: A study of 560 Y chromosomes

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a906354175

AbstractBackground: The genetic structure, affinities, and diversity of the 1 billion Indians hold important keys to numerous unanswered questions regarding the evolution of human populations and the forces shaping contemporary patterns of genetic variation. Although there have been several recent studies of South Indian caste groups, North Indian caste groups, and South Indian Muslims using Y-chromosomal markers, overall, the Indian population has still not been well studied compared to other geographical populations. In particular, no genetic study has been conducted on Shias and Sunnis from North India.

Aim: This study aims to investigate genetic variation and the gene pool in North Indians.

Subjects and methods: A total of 32 Y-chromosomal markers in 560 North Indian males collected from three higher caste groups (Brahmins, Chaturvedis and Bhargavas) and two Muslims groups (Shia and Sunni) were genotyped.

Results: Three distinct lineages were revealed based upon 13 haplogroups. The first was a Central Asian lineage harbouring haplogroups R1 and R2. The second lineage was of Middle-Eastern origin represented by haplogroups J2*, Shia-specific E1b1b1, and to some extent G* and L*. The third was the indigenous Indian Y-lineage represented by haplogroups H1*, F*, C* and O*. Haplogroup E1b1b1 was observed in Shias only.

Conclusion: The results revealed that a substantial part of today's North Indian paternal gene pool was contributed by Central Asian lineages who are Indo-European speakers, suggesting that extant Indian caste groups are primarily the descendants of Indo-European migrants. The presence of haplogroup E in Shias, first reported in this study, suggests a genetic distinction between the two Indo Muslim sects. The findings of the present study provide insights into prehistoric and early historic patterns of migration into India and the evolution of Indian populations in recent history.

Conroy: Central Asia is a place very close to Indian Sub Continent than to any other area. This paper is not new or it is in depth.It is just peripheral.

M: True Invaders don't discriminate Yes.May be R1a invaded Europe and got all the H,U woman from the same logic. The Age and demography supports that.

Ok keep that argument aside. Just countering.

Aryan Invasion in India is a thin theory. No Archaeological proof.

Except R1a none of the other lineages are present in other areas than India, Pak, Afghan in significant numbers. R2, L, C , F, H.

They found R1a and R2 in the same demography. So You say R2 is local and R1a came from Central Asia?.

where is this central Asia?, It is 50 miles from Indian region and may be 3000 miles from Europe.

If every body agrees they are central asian lineages and if it is genetically proven the origin is as good as local or Indian.

Regarding Maternal M, N, R, U lineages. Only difference is M is East coast Indian and U, H are West coast Indian and North west Indian lineages. The maternal lineages strongs supports origin close to Indian Sub continent.

Central Asia is essentially Kazakhstan. Western Kazakhstan is in Europe and Eastern Kazakhstan is in Central Asia. India is far away - check it on a map to see for yourself:http://maps.google.com/maps?q=kazakhstan+map

I must say I am impressed by the apparent high diversity in Northern India. This is the kind of argument that made so many to look at Turkey as the possible urheimat of R1b, so it should be considered very seriously.

Additionally the whole P and R haplogroups seem to gravitate around NW South Asia or southern Central Asia, so would it not be for the Indo-European linguistic issue, we should have little doubt that R1a and R1a1 originated in or near South Asia.

True hat high diversity may be the product of immigration from diverse origins, but in the case of R1a it is difficult to imagine which would be those other various origins.

Admittedly too, the alleged Indo-Aryan penentration into South Asia is weakly demonstrated archaeologically. Yet it would appear solid from a linguistic viewpoint (Indo-Aryan is just a branch of a branch of Indoeuropean), as well as from the Vedas, where there is no reference to IVC or anything like that.

Also, and this seems important, nobody has looked at the origins of the proto-IEs of Samara valley. We know that they were there and that hey surely originated Western and "Central" IE languages, probably also Eastern ones. But we have not the slightest idea of where did they came from. They are not apparently any offshot of the Eastern European refugium people (those would be Dniepr-Don and related).

So I wonder: did proto-proto-IEs, in the Epipaleolithic, arrive to Samara valley from South Asia, briging with them R1a1? Did they later on, in the Bronze Age, turn back their horses and rode into South Asia anyhow?

IMO the urheimat of R1b is in historic Armenia, as I've suggested many times before.

R1a should be close to there, but probably more in the North Caucusus region, between the Black and Caspian seas.

But in relation to the Indo-Aryan language dispersal, all evidence point to Sintashta, and the Sintashta-Petrovka culture it fostered, and it's subsequent spread over Central Asia.

Now as I mentioned previously here:http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/11/y-chromosomes-and-mtdna-from-eulau.htmlpconroy said...eurologist,

... and (ii) a very successful military and agricultural invasion/expansion.

This need not be the case. R1a and particularly R1a1 were probably spread into South Asia by 2 driving forces:

1. Elite dominance - whereby powerful men had more wives - from the native population - and more offspring, over many generations. Like the Genshis Khan, Nial Naoighiallach phenomenon.

2. R1a1 Steppe herders may very well have carried the Lactose Persistance gene (LCT), that gave them a huge nutritional advantage in a dairying economy, like that of South Asia. Here the real spread is of the LCT gene into the population, and R1a1 is just carried along for the ride!

In other words a relatively small percentage of R1a1 invaders, could result in a large percentage of descendants a few thousand years later.

Now I find that Greg Cochran and Henry Harpening new book, says the exact same thing, but not just for Indo-Aryans, but for Indo-Europeans in general. So naturally I feel vindicated by this.

Very true, but that is true of most nomadic invasions - for example the Huns, that invasion happened 1600 ybp but there is no archeological evidence in India and sparse in Europe where there isnegative evidence in the form of no traces of a settled population in the first half of the 5th century in the Hun occupied regions.

"11% R1* in Bihar"

Where did you get this from? I only see this number for the Paswan in Bihar, not for Bihar as a whole. In fact, it appears that Sharma et al specifically picked communities that showed R1* and R1a* presence, because the Sengupta paper which had a large & varied data had 0 R1a* and 0 R1* out of 728 Indian samples. Similarly, the Sahoo et al, had 0 R1a* and 0 R1* for the Bihar population they sampled.

Nevertheless, more studies are indeed needed on eastern India since that region was, as per Indian traditions, where the ancients lived. The Sanskrit Prachin (ancient) is a derivative of Prachaya (east and the old name for Bihar the Prasi of the Greeks) and Purvaja ( or ancestor which literally means Purva-ja or born in the east).

"did proto-proto-IEs, in the Epipaleolithic, arrive to Samara valley from South Asia, briging with them R1a1? Did they later on, in the Bronze Age, turn back their horses and rode into South Asia anyhow?"

Very possible, the median joining network in Figure 3 of Sharma et al (http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v54/n1/fig_tab/jhg20082f3.html#figure-title) shows that both an Indian origin of R1a1 and a CA-Eurasian origin of the bulk of Indian R1a1 are possible.

Even though all the early branches from the node following R1a* are indicated to be in India and not shared with other Eurasians, most of the populous nodes are from a single very long branch that seem to be equally divided between India and CA-Eurasia.All the other branches are long, but India-specific small populations. The origins of R1a/R1b/R2 are close geographically, and right now any place from Europe to India may qualify.

IMO the urheimat of R1b is in historic Armenia, as I've suggested many times before.

R1a should be close to there, but probably more in the North Caucusus region, between the Black and Caspian seas.

The same reasons that apply to R1b and Armenia, as you say, seem to aply to R1a and northern India.

At least on light of this paper...

In fact, it appears that Sharma et al specifically picked communities that showed R1* and R1a* presence, because the Sengupta paper which had a large & varied data had 0 R1a* and 0 R1* out of 728 Indian samples. Similarly, the Sahoo et al, had 0 R1a* and 0 R1* for the Bihar population they sampled.

This is an important footnote.

the median joining network in Figure 3 of Sharma et al shows that both an Indian origin of R1a1 and a CA-Eurasian origin of the bulk of Indian R1a1 are possible.

To me it shows an Indian origin for the R1a-M17 root and some apparent sublineages, followed by a likely Central Asian/European origin for the bulk of the clade.

So it could mean a forth and back movement. It does suggest that the interaction of South Asia with Central Asia is old an continued. This R1a pattern could well be just continuation of the flows of P and R before.

Even though all the early branches from the node following R1a* are indicated to be in India and not shared with other Eurasians, most of the populous nodes are from a single very long branch that seem to be equally divided between India and CA-Eurasia.All the other branches are long, but India-specific small populations.

What suggests that there is some diversity within R1a1 but that it had not been located because the big numbers are all concentrated in one extreme and the rare sublineages are all in South Asia.

The origins of R1a/R1b/R2 are close geographically, and right now any place from Europe to India may qualify.

They are hard to understand in any case. I think that we don't understand all this well enough because the archaeology of many places is not sufficiently well known. Such large population movements, even if just male-mediated, must have left a cultural trail. Yet we fail to see it clearly.

One other point to remember is that the very areas where the proto-Indo-Aryan culture developed in and around Kazakhstan has seen major population replacement by the Huns, Mongols and other Turco-Mongols speakers moving West over the last few millenia. So some of the diversity of R1a1 may have been lost there.

But overall I could see a situation where R1 evolved in India and radiated out from there initially, with R1a and R1b evolving some place not far off, then R1a1 spreading everywhere with the IE expansion. This would mean that the bulk of Indian Brahmins R1a1 derives from an external source, even if some of its antecedents evolved in India.

Diversity of R1a1 is also very high in the Balkans, but this may be as a result of overlapping strains of R1a1, some coming in from the Steppes, and more by way of Anatolia.

But hang on. Weren't you very reluctant to accept this possibility when I mentioned it on another of Dienekes' posts? As I said there I strongly suspect that this backwards and forwards movement has been going on for a very long time. Probably long before modern haplogroups had even appeared.

"but this may be as a result of overlapping strains".

I also strongly suspect that this factor has been responsible for several other regions of perceived modern haplogroup diversity. However again there seems to be strong resistance to this possibility in some quarters.

One other point to remember is that the very areas where the proto-Indo-Aryan culture developed in and around Kazakhstan has seen major population replacement by the Huns, Mongols and other Turco-Mongols speakers moving West over the last few millenia. So some of the diversity of R1a1 may have been lost there.

Has anybody sampled Afghanistan yet? There are numbers and some diveristy in Tajikistan and other areas of Central Asia anyhow but it's only logical that the semideserts of Khazakstan have suffered massive replacement with the Turco-Mongols. The core of CA anyhow is Uzbekistan, where human presence has been reported since old, at least since Neolithic. In that "oasis province", where people were mostly sedentary, we should expect (and we actually find) a more layered Y-DNA, representing all cultural stages.

This is important because it fits well with what we also see in Europe or West Asia: that R1a only became dominant in areas that had low population density at the time of the Kurgan migrations. Clearly the once semi-empty plains of Eastern Europe and Sweden (but not really in the rather densely populated Denmark, Germany or the Danubian basin) or in mountain areas like Slovenia that were virtually desert in the Neolithic. An exception appears to be the Czech Republic but that's about it.

So part of the question is why much of South Asia, believed to have been so densely populated in the Neolithic has become so strongly dominated by R1a. One possible answer would be that it's native to India, but it's hard to make that fit in a global perspective, another that the decline of Neolithic civilizations was massive and that the IA invasion was also massive, at least in its effects. More like the Spanish colonization of America than like the British colonization of India, so to say.

There can be a little of both, not sure. One thing I have been pondering is that South Asian R1a is not concentrated in and near Pakistan (where IVC once stood) but further to the East, with peaks in places like Uttar Pradesh (now a very dense state but probably much less so in the time of the IA migrations).

Diversity of R1a1 is also very high in the Balkans, but this may be as a result of overlapping strains of R1a1, some coming in from the Steppes, and more by way of Anatolia.

Doubt it (can't think in any strong Anatolian influence in the area, except Troy, cultural, and the Turks, merely political). It may reflect several waves from Eastern and Northern Europe instead: first IE wave, then Traco-Dacians, then Cimmerian and Scythians (Iranian peoples) and finally the Slavic wave. But all them seem to stem from Eastern Europe or cross through it, so we should find that diversity also there.

Weren't you very reluctant to accept this possibility when I mentioned it on another of Dienekes' posts?

No. And anyhow you're talking of somehing unrelated. Here we may be watching evidence, at least indications, for one forth and back migration. Maybe only. You were talking of something only in your mind.

Plus here we are talking of migration on horse and chariots, what obviously allows for much greater mobility in the short run.

"So part of the question is why much of South Asia, believed to have been so densely populated in the Neolithic has become so strongly dominated by R1a".

You may have provided part of the answer here:

"it's only logical that the semideserts of Khazakstan have suffered massive replacement".

I would guess that the region has several times suffered a total clearing of humans. As have several other regions of the earth. Further:

"here we are talking of migration on horse and chariots".

Probably just recently adopted as beasts of burden. Before the Indo-European expansion horses seem to have been mainly used for food. Horse riding (or sledges and carts) allowed humans to exploit grassy plains. This would be why, "South Asian R1a is not concentrated in and near Pakistan (where IVC once stood) but further to the East". The Thar Desert had also become sparsely inhabited separating India into two regions. R1a was able to move east through the semidesert, bypassing the Central and Southern Indus population. Uttar Pradesh may also have been sparsely inhabited although I can't think of any reason why.

"anyhow you're talking of somehing unrelated".

Why on earth would we put on different spectacles to examine similar phenomena?

"So part of the question is why much of South Asia, believed to have been so densely populated in the Neolithic has become so strongly dominated by R1a".

You may have provided part of the answer here:

"it's only logical that the semideserts of Khazakstan have suffered massive replacement".

I would guess that the region has several times suffered a total clearing of humans. As have several other regions of the earth.

Khazakstan is not South Asia. You're mixing apples and oranges here. There's no evidence or even indication that South Asia ever "suffered a total clearing of humans". In fact that is not even true for semidesertic Khazakstan, where pre-Turkic DNA is still relevant.

Anyhow, except maybe for the most extreme enviroments, humans are terribly tough and adaptative, of the kind of criatures like rats and roaches are.

It can maybe be argued wether Western IEs of the middle Chalcolithic rode on horses or not (I am pretty sure they did, largely because horse pastoralism can only be done by riding horses, but well...) but there is absolutely no doubt that horses and chariots were mainstream 2000 years after that, in the Bronze Age, when Eastern IEs are supposed to have invaded South Asia.

To give a reference the alleged IA expansion was just a few centuries before the famed battle of Kadesh between the Egyptians and Hittites, where more than 5000 war chariots are said to have fought.

In fact, the war chariot appears to have been an Indoiranian invention c. 2000 BCE at the Shintashta-Petrovka culture.

R1a was able to move east through the semidesert, bypassing the Central and Southern Indus population. Uttar Pradesh may also have been sparsely inhabited although I can't think of any reason why.

There was a Neolithic culture in the middle Ganges, but I dont know enough about it and its likely decadence to judge. In any case nothing comparable to IVC.

"anyhow you're talking of somehing unrelated".

Why on earth would we put on different spectacles to examine similar phenomena?

Because it may not be "similar" at all. Each case must be analyzed on its own evidence and each hypothesis on its own merits.

"Khazakstan is not South Asia. You're mixing apples and oranges here".

You're misinterpreting what I was getting at here, I hope not deliberately so. I'm presuming that you accept that the world's climate could hardly have been completely stable over the last 100,000 years or so. I was suggesting that periodic drying of semi-desert grasslands would have periodically emptied those regions of humans, allowing newer arrivals with new technolgy to enter what had basically become uninhabited regions.

"Anyhow, except maybe for the most extreme enviroments, humans are terribly tough and adaptative, of the kind of criatures like rats and roaches are".

You overestimate human adaptability. It's well accepted that humans died out on many Pacific islands with depletion of resources after an initial colonisation. It's also apparent that they died out through parts of what is now Indonesia with rising sea level and subsequent isolation. And the praire of North America was very sparsely inhabited, and then only along river valleys, before European horses arrived. Open grassland is not usually prime human real estate.

Another apparently deliberate misinterpretation. Of course you must have realised I was actually referring to the Indo-European expansion which, as you say, occurred somewhere slightly more recently than 4000 years ago. Horses seem to have been used as beasts of burden long after donkeys had been used as such.

It's diificult to avoid the conclusion you're anything other than a grumpy old man, even though your blog indicates you're about half my age.

I'm presuming that you accept that the world's climate could hardly have been completely stable over the last 100,000 years or so.

Obviously.

I was suggesting that periodic drying of semi-desert grasslands would have periodically emptied those regions of humans, allowing newer arrivals with new technolgy to enter what had basically become uninhabited regions.

Evidence?

You overestimate human adaptability. It's well accepted that humans died out on many Pacific islands with depletion of resources after an initial colonisation.

Afaik the natives of Easter Island survived in spite of resource depeletion.

Anyhow a small island is hardly comparable to the vastness of Eurasian steppes.

It's also apparent that they died out through parts of what is now Indonesia with rising sea level and subsequent isolation.

Sounds far-fetched.

Open grassland is not usually prime human real estate.

Maybe not. I never said it was. But if there is game (and usually there is in such econiches) then some humans could perfectly have exploited it.

In fact a good deal of the secondary expansions in Eurasia appear to have done so into less favorable econiches like the steppes and tundra. I admit that their density was surely low anyhow.

Another apparently deliberate misinterpretation. Of course you must have realised I was actually referring to the Indo-European expansion which, as you say, occurred somewhere slightly more recently than 4000 years ago.

The IE expansion (as per the Kurgan model) is a long process spanning roughly between 5,500 years ago and the present. It is the migrations into South Asia which happened c. 1500 BCE (i.e. c. 3500 years ago, after war chariot was common) - and the ones into Iran were even later (c. 700 BCE).

Be careful not confusing BCE with BP dates, please.

Horses seem to have been used as beasts of burden long after donkeys had been used as such.

I don't know nor I can see how this would be relevant. Horses began to be used massively (as cattle and therefore surely as mounts too) with the Botai culture soon before the first IE expansion c. 5,500 years ago.

Two-wheeled effective war chariots appear much later (though heavy 4-wheeled chariots, or carts, are fully part of the early Kurgan archaeology) but they did before the Indo-Iranian expansion and seem to have been a cenral part of it.

i always thought it was weird that east indians had r1a! isnt r1a the slavic or eastern european marker? shoudnt they have more j2 or j1? shoudnt indians have more "blondism" i mean east india is pretty far from poland and russia! and closer to the middle east! indians shoud have more j1 and j2 and not so much r1a! always thought that was odd

Or shouldn't Eastern Europeans be less blond? Really paternal lineages can only tell us so much on the overall origins of the people. Maternal (mtDNA) lineages often speak much more clearly instead.

For instance, Native Americans have Y-DNA lineages that are direct relative of South Asian and European R, yet they are much more close on the overall genetic makeup (and phenotype) to East/North Asians. Their mtDNA is almost exclusively from that region indeed.

Or take Finns: half of their Y-DNA is direct relative to East/North Asian clades, yet their mtDNA is totally European. Again they look mostly lke their mtDNA would suggest.

Paternal lineages simply are sometimes subject to extreme drift, it seems. Individual men can potentially have hundreds of children, while women can hardly produce more than a dozen or so. In the long run this favors the fixation of paternal lineages.

Those claiming the Indian origin of the Brahmins and Zoroastrians, have only one question to answer.

Why do the Zoroastrians, Brahmins and those at the top of the Hindu caste system have whiter skin color than those at the bottom???

Migration of humans and animals and birds is always towards hotter hospitable and vegetative climates , which in itself proves the Aryan invasion theory. Which also proves why India is the most populated in the world.

If reverse migration were true and Brahmins and Sanskrit moved from India to Europe, there would be a lot of dark skinned people in Europe instead of the other way round.

Aryan Hindu ideologues decades ago claimed they were pure Europeans and wanted equality with whites in the Europe and USA. Now they claim that they originated in India to spread the worship of the Kings (Devas) who slaughtered the Dravidians of India centuries ago.

The truth is Aryan Brahmkins originated in Iran and central Asia and not in Europe or India. The Kshatriyas are partly remanants of the Greek Army of Alexander who conquered india in 3rd century BC

Hmm, you seem real yet registered with a robot-like name. I wonder why, especially because you are also followig my blog.

Migration of humans and animals and birds is always towards hotter hospitable and vegetative climatesMigrations tend to go in the direction of less resistence and max benefit. I'd dare say of where f{benfit/resistence} shows its highest figure. So if the north is cold but empty: people will go there, and if the north happens like since the heavy plough was developed, to provide high agriultural rates, people will go there and/or expand there.

With your blank statement (calling that a theory is insulting for true theories) there would be no polar bears and we humans would have never left Africa (which IMO could have been a better idea after all but...)

Which also proves why India is the most populated in the world.Uh... what about China? Most of that overpopulation is anyhow very recent: while Europe and the USA stagnated their demic growth, the rest of the world did not (or did so more gradually), "misusing" the improvements in health care, without using in comparable ammounts those of "education". This was driven of course by an endemic need of Capital in underdeveloped (neocolonial) areas to get as much cheap manpower, and not educated workers who could challenge the status quo, as possible. A century ago, India was still comparable to Europe in terms of population, same for China. Now they are "monsters". But I'd say that Europe too is overpopulated, even if not at such extreme levels. That's why people in fact migrates from warmer areas to cold Europe: because it's where f reaches its highest values nowadays (along with other "rich" regions).

If reverse migration were true and Brahmins and Sanskrit moved from India to Europe, there would be a lot of dark skinned people in Europe instead of the other way round.Not if the process happened loooong ago and was basically male-mediated (i.e. filtered by many consecutive generations of local women). The overall autosomal genetic pool would be in the end almost 100% local, even if nearly all the Y-DNA is from a distant origin. It happens a lot in fact.

Anyhow R1a is also very common in low caste Indians, who often are quite dark (though in truth, caste lines are not really about skin color and many low caste people are much whiter than many high caste ones). This is again because the genetic flow has been "filtered" by many generations of local women (basically).

Also people tan and untan and these adaptations may persist through generations without any real need of a true gene via epigenetics. We really don't know enough about that yet but racialist ideas based on phenotypic traits, including skin color, may be largely false. For example white USAmericans seem to have nowadays much lower frequency of blue eyes than a century ago (read at Razib long ago - search for it yourself) with apparently no or extremely low immigrational influence. Logically they will be tanning overall and losing those extreme depygmented traits they can get rid of (and more should be Australians, who live in the tropics) because those climates are not the very especial conditions of Northern Europe.

The truth is Aryan Brahmkins originated in Iran and central Asia and not in Europe or India.That is not true: Iran was conquered by IEs after big parts of India. Iranians are in fact the last genuine Indo-Europeans of the steppes (Scythians and the like). Additionally not all Brahmins are R1a, while many among the low castes are.

The Kshatriyas are partly remanants of the Greek Army of Alexander who conquered india in 3rd century BC Alexander did not conquer India in the modern sense, just Pakistan. East of it laid what would soon be the Empire of Asoka and that's why Alexander decided, even if reluctantly, to pull back: too big and powerful to dare fighting it. The Ksatriya caste is much older than that anyhow: it's obviously from the Vedic period.

Nonsense. And I speak as non-IE who doesn't give a dime for IE or "Aryan" identity which I find alien and opressive.

Reason one: linguistics:

Linguistically there's no way that IE derivates from Indoaryan. Indoaryan is a branch of Indoiranian (or Eastern IE) which in turn is a branch of IE at parallel standing with Western IE and the various other branches (Tocharian, Hittite, Albanian and Greco-Armenian - or Greek and Armenian separately, depending who you read).

The obvious gravity center for all these subfamilies of IE is around the Black Sea or the Caspian. If South Asia would be at the origin of IE languages, there would be greatest linguistic diversity also there. But all South Asian IE languages are closely related Indoaryan dialects, derived from Sanscrit, just like Romance languages are derived from Latin.

Reason two: archaeology, prehistory.

There's absolutely no indication that there was any migration out of India at any recent time. Would there have been such migration we would be able to find some traces.

Also why would highly civilized IVC South Asians become barbarians of the steppes? We have never seen or detected such transformation.

Reason three: genetic.

No other South Asian lineages are found at meaningful levels in Central Asia or Europe (nor West Asia either), much less in association with R1a. Would there have been such migration, we'd see some L or some H... We see almost nothing of that (some L erratics in West Asia yes but nothing more).

What this paper indicates (and we remain expectant of further studies that may confirm and expand this line of research, or maybe even question it) is that there appears to be highest R1a1a diversity (and closest to the root) in South Asia. If you follow the philogeny, the next step is in Europe/Central Asia (for some reason the authors did not make a difference in this - what is annoying) and then there is a big cluster including most of R1a1a worldwide.

For me this indicates quite clearly that R1a migrated from South Asia to Europe at stem stage (as a small private lineage) and had a founder effect somewhere (probably at Samara valley), expanding from there thereafter.

This does not question the Kurgan model, but actually ratifies it. It does not even question the association of R1a1a with Kurgan IEs but actually confirms it, to the exclussion of some haplotypes.

It also shows, IMO, that haplogroup R1a1a is significatively older than 5500 years, probably in the range of 10,000 years ago. Something that hyper-recentists will not like but that seems obvious to me on light of the overall evidence.

The idea that Indo-European language is centered in origin at or near the Black Sea region and thus negates Aryans being Indians and vice versa is a serious flaw in logic, a tautology.

I will not expound on this any further.

It is funny when one will agree that Indians are Aryans and Aryans are Indians vis a vis linguistics but will argue against Indians=Aryans, and Aryans=Indians on the grounds of anthropology and or genetics ala R1a it is accepted. Then on the contrary when one will agree that Indians are Aryans and Aryans are Indians vis a vis anthropology or genetics ala R1a but will argue against Indians=Aryans and Aryans=Indians on the grounds of linguistics.

You have all seen this and many have practiced this too.It is always easy and safe to give a little and deny a little too.

So from the above it is clear that almost everyone is too afraid to mention the large white elephant in the room.

It is tragic that not even science is above emotions and politics.

I find it interesting when people place disclaimers of belonging to a certain ethnic group be it by direct words or a pseudonym then go on to support a stance that is not in the best interest of that group in order to achieve some sort of self styled relevancy.

However even more entertaining is the one claiming not to belong to a certain ethnic group and goes ahead to argue against what a certain ethnic group believes is their identity and legacy. If you are not Aryan/Indian/IE then why are you trying to define who or what we are? Mind your own business. Ever hear of self-determination? Live and let live. We are tired of being told who or what we are or were, now that genetics and linguistics combined with Archeology are proving that Aryans are Indian and vice versa, you people cannot stand it. You were all so quick to buy in to the AIT and still try to defend a theory with nil credible evidence but pseudo-science.Yet when irrefutable evidence is placed before your jaundiced eyes, you deny it.Shame on you.

The idea that Indo-European language is centered in origin at or near the Black Sea region and thus negates Aryans being Indians and vice versa is a serious flaw in logic, a tautology.

I'd say that this sentence is a tautology and the fact that you decline to discuss it further demonstrates it.

Anyhow, Aryans are Indians, as nowhere else (except Iran maybe) is this term used. In the context of Europe talking of "Aryans" sounds to Hitler and nothing else.

It is funny when one will agree that Indians are Aryans and Aryans are Indians vis a vis linguistics but will argue against Indians=Aryans, and Aryans=Indians on the grounds of anthropology and or genetics ala R1a it is accepted. Then on the contrary when one will agree that Indians are Aryans and Aryans are Indians vis a vis anthropology or genetics ala R1a but will argue against Indians=Aryans and Aryans=Indians on the grounds of linguistics.

Another tautology. Indoeuropean or Indoaryan are linguistic families and hence Bengalis, Tajiks, Swedes, Greeks, Mexicans and Jamaicans are all Indoeuropean, regardless of where this language family originated.

I would never deny that some Indians are Indoeruopean or Indoaryan (Dravidians are not as are not Mundas either, obviously) but that linguistic (and maybe cultural fact) does not need to be related to where Indoeuropean began.

Mexicans are Latinos but that doesn't mean that Latin first appeared in Tenochtitlan.

You could get nowhere that way. Or you could maybe argue that Germanic arose in Salt Lake City, Slavic in Vladivostok, Arabic in Mauritania or Bantu in Mozambique... with loads of imagination and total disregard for the factual data.

So from the above it is clear that almost everyone is too afraid to mention the large white elephant in the room.

It is tragic that not even science is above emotions and politics.

Blah blah. You make "poetry" not any scientific discussion. You cry a lot but bring forward no data that might support your hypothesis.

If you are not Aryan/Indian/IE then why are you trying to define who or what we are?-

LOL, because your damn cheater murderous IE barbarians have been meddling in our business for more than 3 milennia. It's not like if I'm talking about some exotic ethnicity like, say the Bushmen or the Ainu (that I would be entitled to discuss anyhow, if I know something - why not?) but about which is probably the most important and annoying macro-ethnicty worldwide.

And if that's not enough to you, I am speaking IE right now, so WTF?!

So quit that arrogant ownership discourse: everybody is either IE or IE-influenced nowadays. There's no owner, it's no any copyrighted trademark.

"LOL, because your damn cheater murderous IE barbarians have been meddling in our business for more than 3 milennia." You're pretty entertaining to read Maju.

Isn't it possible that IE was invented by non-R1a's and then imposed into R1a populations by an elite group? A similar Arabicization has happened to Berber populations in North Africa for instance. In India, Dravidian and Aryan languages are both linked to caucasoid populations, but Austro-Asiatic languages are spoken both by Australoids and Mongoloid populations - one of them clearly switched. Then you have the Brahui group in Balochistan (Pakistan, E. Iran, Afghanistan and Turkmenistan) who speak Dravidian. Couldn't it be that ethnic Aryans (i.e. North Indians, Pakistanis, South Afghans, East Iranians) all spoke Dravidian and switched to IE at some point due to a small invading group that didn't leave much of a genetic mark? Aryan may have been a name that group used for itself, which the newly-minted R1a IE speakers adopted for themselves, much as many ethnic Berbers now call themselves Arabs.

R1a is almost certainly Indian or near-Indian in origin (much as ABO blood group B seems to be as well). The diversity metrics surfacing in genetic surveys are pretty much clinching that. People who have an agenda (racial, political, religious) will deny anything - including the holocaust, the existence of dinosaur bones or the out-of-Africa theory - and that won't change. After the diet many Europeans have been fed over centuries the idea of being of African (far) or Indian (not-so-far) descent has to be uncomfortable.

I was struck by a sentence in the original post - "Moreover, India is exceptionally notable for its lack (except in a few erratics) of the related haplogroup R1b, which once again argues against the emergence of R1a in India itself." This makes absolutely no sense at all and betrays a basic lack of understanding of how genetic drift works. R1a isn't a descendant of R1b. The assertion is like saying "Bengali and English are both Indo-European, and since Bengali didn't exist natively in Liverpool, that's a strong argument that English couldn't have originated in England." Welcome to Creationist Bizarroland.

the austro-asiatic language groups to compare would be santali and khasi.

also, "the diet many Europeans have been fed over centuries etc" applies to Indian higher castes also - the idea that they are genetically similar to lower-castes is sure to give many of them angst as well.

on blood group B - the incidence of B trends downwards away from a maximum in India - parts of western europe, africa and the native americans are highly lacking in it. there isn't any implied linkage (that i know of) to r1a however. just an analogy.

It's not impossible that an elite group assimilated others, as Arabs did with Berbers, Egyptians, etc. But:

1. It's very unlikely that they left no genetic traces, even if minimal.

2. You still need an explanation for R1a being spread at high levels between Central Europe and Uttar Pradesh.

The best explanation so far is elite domination by Indoeuropeans spread from the Urals in a well known archaeological sequence that spans through all West, Central and South Eurasia.

I agree that R1a1 is most likely original from South Asia, as are R and P (and maybe even Q too). But most sequences are not clumped towards that South Asian root sequence. Instead they form a tight cluster near the end of the haplotype phylogenetic tree, with clear prevalence of the European/Central Asian populations.

So while R1a1 as such would be of South Asian origin, it surely spread out of India in a founder effect event maybe in Neolithic times. The main haplotype cluster belongs obviously to a more recent event of expansion that can still fit very well with IE/Kurgan spread as we know from archaeology.

You do need a mechanism for this spread and so far the Kurgan model is the one that fits best by far.

When I red Indian "nationalist" critics, they tend to ignore everything that is non-Indian in the R1a1/Indoeuropean area. You can't reach to any solid conclusions by doing that, obviously. You need a model, an explanation, that is comprehensive for all the affected area of Eurasia, not just for South Asia (or Europe or whatever).

on blood group B - the incidence of B trends downwards away from a maximum in India - parts of western europe, africa and the native americans are highly lacking in it. there isn't any implied linkage (that i know of) to r1a however. just an analogy.

Not sure what you mean but, in Europe, blood group B is more dense towards the NE (and virtually null among Basques, etc.) and I am quite sure that this blood type expanded (in Europe) with Indoeuropeans, as the pattern is very obvious. It's surely not the case in India or other parts of Asia.

The key, of course is where haplotypes R or R1 were when R1a or R1b branched off.

Also I'm presumming that R1a or R1b branched off only once -- is it possible that that the mutations could have occurred more than once?

In any case, the obvious place to look is anywhere the R or R1 type is found. I understand that both have small occurences in the Middle East and particularly Pakistan -- not the steppes or north central asia or India.

Also I'm presumming that R1a or R1b branched off only once -- is it possible that that the mutations could have occurred more than once?

No. It's a practical impossibility, it seems. We are talking of a single nucleotide that has changed out of the whole Y chromosome (out of 60 million) for each SNP, in one out of three possible directions of change (not counting deletions and insertions), and all of these lineages which are minimally researched are defined by several, often many known SNPs, not just one.

Still there are a few SNPs that seem to have back-mutated in a tiny proportion of cases (I guess one case and all the rest are descendants). This is the case of P25. But as most lineages (and certainly R1b and R1a) are described by many SNPs, in the end the phylogenies are very very safe. You may want to have some caution if there is only one known SNP but as soon as there are two or three it becomes totally impossible.

A lot of this discussion seems to pre-assume a correlation between R1a and the Indo-European languages.

Looking at the world as of 2009, the people who speak Indo-European languages are R1b and R1a, for the most part.

There are several communities which are majority R1b and majority R1a respectively, that have been known to speak Indo-European languages for all history. Clearly, this points to the Indo-European speakers having been a mixed group (with respect to Y-chromosome haplotype) since the inception of this language group.

Why would you assume that speakers of each language were of a single Y-chromosome haplotype as recently as 2,000 BC? Surely, people were invariably of mixed lineage as they are now.

And haplogroup I too. All three major European haplogroups can be said to be related to IEs if we only look at modern distribution.

However it does not look like R1b is particularly related (take for instance the African or Basque R1b*) and we do know instead that R1a is (even from ancient DNA, which systematically pops up with loads of R1a for Kurgan-related peoples, in Europe as in Central Asia). We also know that IEs expanded from East to West.

Why would you assume that speakers of each language were of a single Y-chromosome haplotype as recently as 2,000 BC BC? Surely, people were invariably of mixed lineage as they are now.

If proto-Indoeuropeans were originally concentrated in a rather small population at the Samara valley, as the Kurgan model holds, they could well have got some fixated lineages, as some other "marginal" populations like Basques or Irish still do.

In their case this would be R1a or a subclade like R1a1a. However it is very hard to demonstrate that this lineage was limited to them. I could well have been present and even common in other areas like India or East Europe even long before IE expansion.

The actual dates for this original PIE population at Samara valley would be 5500-3500 BCE before they began expanding, not 2000 BCE.

Thanks for pointing out the I haplogroup, Maju - indeed, about 20% of all Europeans are expected to be I.

And all these three ancestries have historically (mostly) spoken Indo-European languages for all known history.

Regarding R1b & Indo-European languages not being related: I do not believe the African R1b people are a significant population. If we consider fringe groups, even the R1a people have Dravidian speakers.

Why then associate R1a exclusively with Indo-European speakers, while saying that R1b speakers were not originally Indo-European speakers due to African R1b people who speak other language groups? I strongly believe that these speakers are minority groups, that are geographically situated at the periphery or fringe of the core of the Indo-European speakers. So, except for these peripheral groups, R1b, R1a as well as I people all spoke Indo-European languages for all history.

Regarding the age of the Indo-European language dispersion: The Samara valley culture is itself reliably dated to about 5000 BC. However, why would we associate the artefacts left behind by this culture with the Indo-European *languages*?

An unfortunate issue with the Indo-European languages is that they developed a script relatively late in time. So there aren't too many attestations in older times.

The 2000 BC date I gave corresponds to estimates of the age of composition of the Indian Vedic texts. Yes; dating of oral literature is dodgy and approximate at best. But it's still better than basing our chronological estimates on hypotheses.

PS: You asserted an East->West migration of Indo-European speakers - what is this assertion based on?

And all these three ancestries have historically (mostly) spoken Indo-European languages for all known history.

Not really relevant. Languages come and go, genes remain.

Anyhow, a good deal of R1b (and maybe also I) dominated population was not speaking IE at the beginning of the historical records. If we dig a little further, it's most likely that nobody West of the Rhine and North Sea or South of the Alps spoke IE languages some 3300 years ago and this can be extended to up to 700 and 300 BCE for the vast majority of this area.

... why would we associate the artefacts left behind by this culture with the Indo-European *languages*?-

The Samara valley cultural sequence is the first one anywhere where we find the Kurgan culture, which expanded to the Eastern half of Europe since 3500 BCE (culminating c. 2400 BCE, with Corded Ware). The resulting cultures directly or almost directly lead to the historical IE speakers you mention before.

Similarly other Kurgan-originated waves can be archaeologically traced with pretty decent detail heading to Altai-Uyghuristan (leading to Tocharians), Caucasus-Anatolia (leading to Hittites) and Central-Southern Asia (leading to Indo-Iranians).

You asserted an East->West migration of Indo-European speakers - what is this assertion based on?-

I meant in Europe, not in Asia. It is based on the Kurgan model, which you should read a bit about in order to understand. There's not enough room here to explain in detail a process that takes several millennia.

What about the possibility of R1a coming from Central Asia (Kyrgyzstan area) and spreading to Europe and India? In geographical terms, that seems less far-fetched than either the out-of-India or the Kurgan hypothesis.

Alan: I don't make much sense of a Central Asian origin in archaeological terms. Kyrgyzstan is "the end of the world", a high region probably not really populated till at least Neolithic times. Uzbekistan does have some record, specially since Neolithic, Altai too, but Kyrgyzstan... If we would have a decent knowledge of the prehistory of Kyrgyzstan it would probably begin only in the Bronze Age or barely before that time (and that surely explains the high rate of R1a1, which is probably not the case for diversity).

But Central Asia must have acted as corridor in both directions. So at some time probably R1a1 carriers crossed the region and eventually landed in East Europe, causing a founder effect that was magnified by the IE expansions.

Ra1a in Europe is quite limited (in large amounts) to regions that were scarcely populated in Neolithic times. So in Europe at least it does seem of IE origin. But South Asia was much more densely populated in those times already, so it makes total sense that the haplogroup is older there and that R1a1 in Europe is somehow derived from there ultimately.

It would be really interesting if some archaeology of Central Asia would allow us to connect the first Kurgan culture of Samara valley with a Pakistani or NW Indian origin. That would confirm my "boomerang" hypothesis for IE culture/language and R1a1. But at the moment I can only sit and wait.

I realize I am late to the table with this little bit of information that is being offered to show that clearly the R1a1 can be understood by the mutation at SRY10831.1+ and 10831.2 + as opposed to negative. My understanding is the positive is South-Central Asia and the negative SRY10831.1- / 10831.2- are real R1a1. In other words SRY10831.1 and .2 left Africa for India without mutation and on back migration returned still positive, i.e., not negative.

The R1a1 at 10831.1 and .2 on back migration from Asia/India entered Africa as R1b found in Central Africa specifically at Cameroon. This would show that R1 left Africa to India without mutation to Europe, became negative and returned to Africa through Europe as R1b without the negative mutation at 10831.1and .2 to end up Afro-Asiatic in both Africa and Asia/India.

Old Blog Archive

Dienekes' Anthropology blog is dedicated to human population genetics, physical anthropology, archaeology, and history.

You are free to reuse any of the materials of this blog for non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute them to Dienekes Pontikos and provide a link to either the individual blog entry or to Dienekes Anthropology Blog.

Feel free to send e-mail to Dienekes Pontikos, or follow @dienekesp on Twitter.